Agricultural News
House Ag Committee Chairman Frank Lucas Defends Ag Committee Turf During Ag Appropriations Debate
Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:55:02 CDT
The Chairman of the House Ag Committee, Oklahoma Congressman Frank Lucas, defended the "turf" of his Committee vigorously on Wednesday evening as several amendments were offered by long time critics of farm policy.
Lucas told his colleagues on the House floor that the House Ag Committee was starting an audit of every program that came out of the 2008 farm law this next week- and that the writing of the 2012 farm bill in the months to come would be a transparent process that would help provide production agriculture with a safety net as well as helping producers become more efficient and competitive in the global market.
Click on the LISTEN BAR below to hear the defense offered by Congressman Lucas on Wednesday evening on the House floor. He was speaking specifically against an amendment offered by Ron Kind of Wisconsin that would stopped payment of $147 million to the Brazilain Cotton Institute- which is a payment that Obama Administration agreed would be paid to Brazil in exchange for their word they would not pursue retaliation under the WTO case they won against the US Step 2 cotton program while the US Congress considers new policy that will end up being the 2012 farm bill.
Congressman Lucas has zeroed in on two amendments that he feels would be especially bad for agriculture- the Ron Kind amendment we just described- as well as a measure offered by Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. The Blumenauer amendment would prohibit use of funds to pay salaries and expenses of Agriculture personnel to provide benefits described in the Food Security Act of 1985 to a person or legal entity in excess of $125,000. Lucas wrote two "dear Colleague" letters on these amendments- and we have their contents furhter down in this story.
After working past the midhour hour, the House returns this morning and will hold a series of recorded votes on amendments that we debated last night. GOP Leader Eric Cantor has indicated that the wrapup of the Ag Appropriations measure will come on Thursday afternoon.
Here's the letter from Congressman Lucas urging a no vote on the Ron Kind amendment:
Dear Colleague:
I urge you to vote NO on the Kind Amendment #25 to H.R. 2112, the Agriculture Appropriations Act.
This amendment would expose the U.S. to JOB-KILLING sanctions on a variety of industries, not limited to agriculture.
In the rhetoric surrounding this debate, it is easy to lose sight of the facts. The simple truth is that passing this amendment would put us in violation of an international trade agreement.
In 2010, the U.S. and Brazil completed a Framework Agreement that is a critical step in resolving a trade dispute with Brazil.
Under this agreement, Brazil agreed to suspend trade retaliation through the development of the 2012 Farm Bill. The current arrangement is not ideal, nor is it permanent. It is, however, the only thing standing between us and a trade war with our tenth largest trading partner.
Should we violate the framework, Brazil will immediately begin to impose retaliatory sanctions on $800 million worth of U.S. goods. These sanctions will not be just on agricultural products; they will include software, books, music, and films.
Proponents of this amendment are mischaracterizing our responsibilities under the framework agreement as direct payments to Brazilian cotton farmers. That is not true. The U.S. has insisted that NO funds be used to make direct payments to Brazilian farmers. In fact the funds can only be used for purposes mutually agreed to by the U.S. and Brazil. The program is currently funded through a non-profit organization that is set up specially for this purpose, and is subject to transparency requirements and audits.
Violating this agreement will hurt our credibility and place us at a disadvantage in future negotiations.
This is an attempt to write policy, and it belongs in the Farm Bill; not in an appropriations bill. This is an unacceptable action to circumvent regular order.
The Agriculture Committee is beginning the process next week of developing the 2012 Farm Bill. Cotton policy will be thoroughly evaluated as part of this development and the process will be open, transparent, and inclusive.
I strongly urge you to oppose the Brazil Cotton Amendment and allow the Farm Bill to be written appropriately, and within regular order.
Here's the "dear Colleague" letter opposing the Blumenauer amendment:
Dear Colleague,
One of the consequences of considering policy changes within appropriations bills is that we are not always able to consider the full effects of those changes. That is why I am urging you to reject Mr. Blumenauer's amendment (#3) to limit farm bill payments in excess of $125,000.
This amendment would have far-reaching and devastating consequences for America's farmers. A broad range of farm programs would be affected, including direct or counter-cyclical payments, average crop revenue election payments, marketing loan gain or loan deficiency payments, the noninsured crop assistance program, the milk income loss contract program, and the supplemental agricultural disaster assistance program.
Farmers have already signed up for these programs, and in many cases, they have already paid to participate in these programs. For instance, producers pay a fee to participate in the noninsured crop disaster program, which protects them from losses that result from catastrophic events like flooding and droughts. If this amendment passes, farmers whose have been flooded out are quite literally up a creek without a paddle. Even though they have paid for coverage, they would be denied benefits.
This amendment would also affect the permanent disaster program. Producers were required to purchase crop insurance to be eligible for that program. This amendment would be a bait and switch-farmers have fulfilled their end of the bargain, but the government is changing the rules.
My colleagues in the Midwest have seen first-hand the devastation of flooding. My colleagues in the Southeast know that tornadoes can destroy entire farming communities in an instant. My colleagues in the Southwest have seen droughts turn healthy farms into desolate fields.
This amendment asks us to tell the farmers affected by these catastrophes that while they were trying to save their equipment, livestock, and personal property from devastation, we were changing the rules in Washington. So they may have lost everything, but we in Washington have decided it was only worth $125,000.
For that reason alone I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. But I also urge you to oppose it because policy changes like this one should be conducted within the broader context of all farm policy.
The Agriculture Committee will be auditing farm programs for effectiveness and efficiency, and then we will seek input from across the country on the best way to support our farmers and ranchers while making good use of taxpayer dollars.
Discussing farm programs in the context of the Farm Bill will represent honest, transparent policy making. This amendment prevents that discussion from taking place by altering the terms of contracts with farmers once they've already been signed.
Please join me in opposing this amendment.
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI
Top Agricultural News
More Headlines...
